Persons lacking health insurance and persons insured by Medicaid are more likely diagnosed with late stage cancer at diverse sites, and efforts to improve access to cancer-screening services are warranted for these groups. Racial differences in stage at diagnosis are not explained by insurance coverage or socioeconomic status.

Population-based screening for early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and precursor lesions, using evidence-based methods, can be effective in populations with a significant burden of the disease provided the services are of high quality. Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project co-financed by the European Union. The 450-page guidelines were published in book format by the European Commission in 2010.They include 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, individually graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. Adoption of the recommendations can improve and maintain the quality and effectiveness of an entire screening process, including identification and invitation of the target population, diagnosis and management of the disease and appropriate surveillance in people with detected lesions. To make the principles, recommendations and standards in the guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community and to facilitate their use in the scientific literature, the original content is presented in journal format in an open-access Supplement of Endoscopy. The editors have prepared the present overview to inform readers of the comprehensive scope and content of the guidelines. IntroductionAccording to recent estimates by the International Agency for Research on Cancer [1], colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer in Europe with 432 000 new cases reported annually in men and women combined. It is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in Europe with 212 000 deaths reported in 2008.Worldwide, CRC ranks third in incidence and fourth in mortality with an estimated 1.2 million cases and 0.6 million deaths annually. In the 27 Member States of the European Union (EU), CRC ranks first in incidence and second in mortality, with approximately 334000 new cases and 149000 deaths estimated in 2008.Even in those Member States in the lower range for age-standardized rates of CRC, the burden of disease is significantly greater when compared with many other HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript regions of the world (see reference [1]). CRC is therefore an important health problem across the EU.Screening can be effective in cancer control in populations with a significant burden of CRC, provided the services are of high quality [2]. The aim of CRC screening is to lower the burden of cancer in the population by discovering disease in its early, latent stages [3]. Evidence-based methods permit treatment that is more effective than if disease is diagnosed later when symptoms have occurred. Early treatment of invasive lesions, for example by endoscopic resection of early CRC, can also be less detrimental for quality of life. The endoscopic removal of pre-malignant lesions also reduces the incidence of CRC by avoiding the progression to cancer. Randomized trials in people of average risk invite...

In developing countries, people are exposed to a wider range of risk factors, starting at younger ages, and primary prevention measures and policies are needed. Awareness of professionals must be improved to identify people at risk and target them for prevention and to minimize the consequences of OCC.

No abstract

Cancer registration data plays a major role in the design and monitoring of cancer control activities and policies, and population-based cancer registries (PBCR) are the main source of information. In developed countries, the healthcare infrastructure enables the registration of quality cancer data. In low and middle Income countries (LMIC), where health care facilities are limited or scarce, cancer registration data may be of low quality. The aim of this article is to demonstrate the value of cancer incidence data for LMIC, even when quality is questionable, as well as to attempt to interpret the messages that the quality indicators convey both for cancer registration and the healthcare system. The study of data submitted to the Cancer incidence in five continents, volume nine (CI5-IX) leads to the conclusion that when PBCR from LMIC cannot provide good quality data it may indicate a deficiency that goes above and beyond the registrar ability. The quality control indicators evaluated provide insight on local conditions for cancer diagnosis and care. Low data quality not only signals lack of collaboration among reporting sources and the inability of the registrar to perform quality abstracting, but also points to specific weaknesses of the cancer care system and can guide improvement goals and efforts.